similar to: [LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM

I wrote: > The Solution: Make LLVM usable as a DLL or SLL in Windoze, > capable of generating a finished ready-to-execute .EXE or > .DLL file, without requiring that MinGW or Cygwin be > installed first. Michael T. Richter replied: > You will be welcomed with open arms by the LLVM community > when you write this. I look forward to your announcement > with bated breath.

Owen Anderson wrote: > There's nothing particularly stopping you from having your > installation package include copies of gas and ld, I disagree. gas and ld are not available on Windoze, except via MinGW. Yes I can make or tell my customers to install MinGW, but if MinGW is installed, then I don't need LLVM. (More about this further ahead) > You're welcome to think

Michael T. Richter wrote: > Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your > attention. They're sneaky that way because, you know, > they just form the bulk of available documentation. I began my original message saying that I was providing "constructive criticism". That means I want to HELP if I can. Your sarcastic attitude is unprofessional. > The

Chris Lattner wrote: > If you'd prefer to use GCC, go for it. No one is forcing > you to use LLVM. No, we would prefer to use LLVM, but a missing part in LLVM makes it difficult. It would be wonderful if this missing part could be supplied. > You are seriously ignorant of what LLVM is all about. > Please go inform yourself. Alright, I read some more on llvm.org and it

me22.ca wrote: > You said that if I have to install GCC, you might as well > just use it for everything. That statement very clearly > doesn't apply anymore, since it's binutils that's the > dependency. Or if you still stand by it, it means that > you consider GCC to also be "incomplete". How do I get the necessary binutils on Windoze? Install MinGW or

On May 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM, kr512 wrote: >> You are seriously ignorant of what LLVM is all about. >> Please go inform yourself. > > Alright, I read some more on llvm.org and it confirmed what > I was saying: > http://www.llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#tutorial > > See at the end where it says: > ----------- > 6.Compile the program to native assembly using

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:30 +1000, kr512 wrote: > Michael T. Richter wrote: > > Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your > > attention. They're sneaky that way because, you know, > > they just form the bulk of available documentation. > I began my original message saying that I was providing > "constructive criticism". That means I want to

Not that I sympathize with the OP's manners but... Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes: > On May 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM, kr512 wrote: > >> See how gcc is invoked to generate the final executable >> file. This means LLVM is an incomplete backend, >> unfortunately. >> > That's only a convenience. GCC generates assembly code too and calls

On Tuesday 13 May 2008 06:49:34 kr512 wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > Can you explain why you would like to generate DLLs on the > > customer's computer rather than using LLVM as a JIT > > compiler? > > Customers/clients unhappy with the inefficiency, extra CPU > and RAM usage, and performance penalty of JIT. They require > a faster, more efficient solution.

Jon Harrop wrote: > So LLVM has relatively poor support for Windows, no direct > support for DLL generation and the exact opposite of your > performance requirements. I see. This news is disappointing to me. > I appreciate that you have customer demands but those > demands are very unusual (and, frankly, absurd!) but you > must try to meet them regardless. Very unusual?

Oh another thing, consider this question that some people will be asking: Why not use GCC to do what LLVM does, and skip the hassle of using LLVM entirely? ESPECIALLY considering that LLVM cannot be used without GCC. Even if you are using LLVM as a back-end only, for compiling LLVM bytecode only, GCC is still required to convert the "llc" output assembly .S file into a

Is this thread suposed to be a bad joke? 2008/5/10 kr512 <kr512 at optusnet.com.au>: > > Chris Lattner wrote: >> If you'd prefer to use GCC, go for it. No one is forcing >> you to use LLVM. > > No, we would prefer to use LLVM, but a missing part in LLVM > makes it difficult. It would be wonderful if this missing > part could be supplied. > >> You

On May 11, 2008, at 9:36 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > > Not that I sympathize with the OP's manners but... > > Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes: >> >> That's only a convenience. GCC generates assembly code too and calls >> the assembler and linker as part of it's execution. You are perfectly >> able to call the assembler & linker

Yes, you are right. During my testings, I tried the llvm produced .S files with the gcc frontend and it compiled and linked them to the final executable. The problem is with the gcc and binutils licence. This is GPL and while this is ok for open source or for academic purposes, it can't be used on commercial projects. In fact one of the strong points of llvm (and clang) is its BSD like

> There's also then entire GNU toolchain, through MinGW and/or Cygwin. Which works perfectly right now without any extra tweaking :) -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

Dear R helpers,   I understand that this is absolutely unprofessional on my part and this group doesn't entertain such things. I have been associted with this group since last 1 and half years and have been immensely benefited by the noble service rendred by many R helpers.   So I take this opportunity to thank all of you and wish you all   "MERRY CHRISTMAS".   I sincerely apologize

> This means that LLVM requires an assembler and linker. Call it > GCC or binutils, it is irrelevant. The OP point is that LLVM > is not a self-sufficient tool on this aspect. > > Of course, if this is a serious problem for the OP, the > correct way of dealing with it is to take constructive, polite > actions for correcting it :-) I know one compiler (Free Pascal) that

Razvan, You're somewhat misinterpreting the GPL license. Using binutils as a dependency of LLVM does not require that they be linked into any distributable that might contain proprietary code. They can be shipped as separate, purely-GPL'd executables that are called via the command line, thereby avoiding the whole "infection" problem. This is, for instance, how

Hi all, I am just curious to know when will the llvm-db be released. I hope I am posting in the right forum. In the latest release 2.2, the llvm-db binary doesn't appear to load the symbol table or debug the bytecode. It spits out a message saying that this feature is still not implemented. Thanks & Regards, -Lokesh -- "It is not God that is worshipped but the group or authority

I am trying to configure the FXO port on a Sipura-3000 for use with Asterisk. When I connect to the Sipura to dial out on the PSTN line connected to the Sipura's FXO port, it gives me the dialtone of the PSTN line and then I can hear the DTMF for the number I dialled beforehand. It does work but the customer perceives this delayed second DTMF feedback as "unprofessional" and the